Would a middleweight be able to pull this off?

[boliodogs]

no doubt. adonis stevenson was known for knocking several HW's out in sparring when he was at 168.

toney, mcclellan and others were known to brutalize men regardless of size in the gym. mcclellan basically only sparred bigger guys (post kronk) because hardly anyone else could even give him rounds before they went down.

patterson was a middleweight as an amateur, what he did to HW's in the gym is part of what prompted him to fight bigger men as a pro (the money obviously being the main reason).

julian jackson could flat line most HW's with relative ease.

its not hard to hurt bigger men, a puncher is a puncher. problem (if there is one) is they can generally do the same damn near effortlessly.

This should answer your question. Old timers Sam Langford and bob Fitzsimmons knocked out heavyweights many times while weighing 160 to 165 pounds.

[kafkod]

They were deliberately chosen. I do try to have some level of provocation to my posts even if the best I am good for are boring history or science lessons.

As long as you got the point bud I don't actually care to argue too much about the characters.

I'd side with Cribb, he knows what flopping is and Wlad doesn't.

I think maybe Mendoza vs Lewis would be the most absurd one. That's one I have a hard time seeing the little guy staying away long enough for the giant to tire, but, history is pretty clear and I don't believe in magic people so...beyond my own intuition I'd go with Mendoza.

I hear ya, but that's within the limits of a 12 round fight, which the bigger guy is trained for... I think what I'm getting at is that 15 round fights would tend to favour slightly smaller guys than the behemoths we get dominating today at HW and the earlier unlimited fights would presumably have increasingly favoured stamina over mass... all this assumes of course that the smaller more durable guy was able to not only outlast their bigger opponent but also do respectable damage and be sturdy enough to soak up what he couldn't run away from. I'm talking here about the gradual shift from the 180/190lb HWs champions of Corbetts 20 or 25 round era through the 200-220lb dudes of the 15 round era to the giants of today fighting 12 rounds at 240 or 150lbs. This size increase does of course also follow a trend of increasing size in Western populations, so I can't say for sure it's down to one reason alone and further research would have to be done, but it makes sense to me.

To me, it fles in the face of logic to say that a bigger man would have less chance of wearing down a smaller man over 15 rounds than 12, and that unlimited rounds would likely lead to the smaller man wearing down the bigger.

Smaller men do tend to have better stamina than big men - but not when they are expending far more energy fighting a bigger man than the bigger man is expending fighting them.

It also flies in the face of boxing history.

Multi weight world champions were more rare in the 15 round era than they are now.

And the first weight divisions: "Lighter" - up to around 168lbs, and "Heavier" - anything over 168lbs, were introduced in the 19th century during the unlimited rounds era because people involved in the sport, especially bookies, realised that size disparities gave an unfair advantage to the bigger man.

Now to this: "I'm talking here about the gradual shift from the 180/190lb HWs champions of Corbetts 20 or 25 round era through the 200-220lb dudes of the 15 round era to the giants of today fighting 12 rounds at 240 or 250lbs."

The 200 - 220lb dudes only took over from the 180/190lb dudes and became the norm towards the tail end of the 15 round era, after the first post WW2 generation reached their maturity and the average size of men in the developed countries began to increase steadily year by year thereafter. As did the average size of HW boxers.

Here, I pick up Occam's razor, cut away everything except the bolded, and reach the conclusion that there is no need to postulate some cause/effect relationship between the introduction of 12 round championship fights and the 200/220lb dudes deciding to campaign as cruiserweights and leave the HW title to the new breed of 240/250lb giants.

[Citizen Koba]

To me, it fles in the face of logic to say that a bigger man would have less chance of wearing down a smaller man over 15 rounds than 12, and that unlimited rounds would likely lead to the smaller man wearing down the bigger.

Smaller men do tend to have better stamina than big men - but not when they are expending far more energy fighting a bigger man than the bigger man is expending fighting them.

It also flies in the face of boxing history.

Multi weight world champions were more rare in the 15 round era than they are now.

And the first weight divisions: "Lighter" - up to around 168lbs, and "Heavier" - anything over 168lbs, were introduced in the 19th century during the unlimited rounds era because people involved in the sport, especially bookies, realised that size disparities gave an unfair advantage to the bigger man.

Now to this: "I'm talking here about the gradual shift from the 180/190lb HWs champions of Corbetts 20 or 25 round era through the 200-220lb dudes of the 15 round era to the giants of today fighting 12 rounds at 240 or 250lbs."

The 200 - 220lb dudes only took over from the 180/190lb dudes and became the norm towards the tail end of the 15 round era, after the first post WW2 generation reached their maturity and the average size of men in the developed countries began to increase steadily year by year thereafter. As did the average size of HW boxers.

Here, I pick up Occam's razor, cut away everything except the bolded, and reach the conclusion that there is no need to postulate some cause/effect relationship between the introduction of 12 round championship fights and the 200/220lb dudes deciding to campaign as cruiserweights and leave the HW title to the new breed of 240/250lb giants.

I'm a big fan of Occam's beard trimmer myself and it's probably true that the established fact of increase in average size is the explanation requiring fewest assumptions, but it's not like the idea that shifting more mass is harder work is controversial either. My suspicion would be that there's an element of both factors in there.

Probably the thing to do would be to chart increase in size in the total population against increase in size amongst unlimited class boxers and see if a pattern emerges (ie is one increasing faster than the other)... might also be interesting to run the same exercise against various other sports' top athletes, both explosive and endurance (boxing being somewhat of both) to see how the size/time metrics stack up.

[Damn Wicked]

If a heavyweight doesn't fight back he can get knocked the fuk out, never mind a standing 8 count. As long as the middleweight has some decent punching power. Heavyweights don't have skulls made of iron. They can have their brains shaking badly from a much smaller fighter...You might have to hit them more but a series of punches will KO them if one punch doesn't do the trick.

[Marchegiano]

To me, it fles in the face of logic to say that a bigger man would have less chance of wearing down a smaller man over 15 rounds than 12, and that unlimited rounds would likely lead to the smaller man wearing down the bigger.

Smaller men do tend to have better stamina than big men - but not when they are expending far more energy fighting a bigger man than the bigger man is expending fighting them.

It also flies in the face of boxing history.

Multi weight world champions were more rare in the 15 round era than they are now.

And the first weight divisions: "Lighter" - up to around 168lbs, and "Heavier" - anything over 168lbs, were introduced in the 19th century during the unlimited rounds era because people involved in the sport, especially bookies, realised that size disparities gave an unfair advantage to the bigger man.

Now to this: "I'm talking here about the gradual shift from the 180/190lb HWs champions of Corbetts 20 or 25 round era through the 200-220lb dudes of the 15 round era to the giants of today fighting 12 rounds at 240 or 250lbs."

The 200 - 220lb dudes only took over from the 180/190lb dudes and became the norm towards the tail end of the 15 round era, after the first post WW2 generation reached their maturity and the average size of men in the developed countries began to increase steadily year by year thereafter. As did the average size of HW boxers.

Here, I pick up Occam's razor, cut away everything except the bolded, and reach the conclusion that there is no need to postulate some cause/effect relationship between the introduction of 12 round championship fights and the 200/220lb dudes deciding to campaign as cruiserweights and leave the HW title to the new breed of 240/250lb giants.

Occam's Razor clearly point to your logic meaning **** next to three thousand years of history buddy.

Hence my Mendoza-Lewis bit. Nothing flies more in the face of logic because Mendoza a 155lber, but, three thousand of evidence is a lot of evidence.

It's the sport that evolved not the people. My explanation explain this. Yours doesn't. Yours by your own admission cuts away most of boxing history to focus on a time when boxing rules were drastically changed.

In a system where both fighters know there is no time limit both fighters will start that fight differently than one that has a time limit. In a system where rounds are down the fighters will fight differently then a system where rounds are timed

I shouldn't need to continue, you get the point.

So far as energy output, you are assuming. That is exactly why it used to work. The energy output difference is just ****ing absurd.

If the sport was running would you even consider it? Do you really believe a smaller man can't not only run farther than Wlad but do it while running faster? Have you seen the shape of a great runner?

Nope, if Wlad tries to keep up with a runner like Bekele, Bekele will kill him unless Wlad quits. Too fast, too endurant. You know it's damn true. That's why we don't have HW runners.

Throw in a bit of punching and all of a sudden gas tanks are somewhere in the world of evens? No, they're not even close.

Look into kinesiology if you're actually interested in the science that explains it.

[kafkod]

I'm a big fan of Occam's beard trimmer myself and it's probably true that the established fact of increase in average size is the explanation requiring fewest assumptions, but it's not like the idea that shifting more mass is harder work is controversial either. My suspicion would be that there's an element of both factors in there.

Probably the thing to do would be to chart increase in size in the total population against increase in size amongst unlimited class boxers and see if a pattern emerges (ie is one increasing faster than the other)... might also be interesting to run the same exercise against various other sports' top athletes, both explosive and endurance (boxing being somewhat of both) to see how the size/time metrics stack up.

I've seen statistical comparisons of the relative size of top class modern athletes and those of previous eras in a variety of different sports. The top sprinters, swimmers, football (soccer) players, rugby players, tennis players, are all, on average, bigger now than at at any time in the past.

Yes shifting more of your own mass involves more effort. But if you are using your own mass to shift something - or somebody - else, then the more more mass you have, the less effort is required.

In the case of boxers, taking punches from your opponent drains you of energy just as much, if not more, than throwing punches. The harder the punches, the more they take out of you, and the bigger the opponent, the harder he will hit you. And, of course, wrestling, shoving, and resisting being shoved around in clinches is also more tiring if your opponent is bigger than you.

Jim Jeffries and Jack Johnson were arguably the 2 greatest ever unlimited rounds champions. Both were considered to be invincible, in their primes, and both were unusually big men for their era. Jeffries was 6' 1.5" 225lbs, Johnson was 6' 2" and around 210lbs, in his prime.

Johnson was known as "The Galveston giant" because athletic men of his size were comparitively rare back then. He could probably have made CW if he was fighting today!

My contention is that if guys of Johnson and Jeffries size had been as common in the unlimited rounds era as they became in the 60s and 70s, there would have been more of them winning world HW titles.

The guy who eventually beat Johnson, also over unlimited rounds, was Jess Willard, who was 6' 6" 235lbs. Willard was thought of as a genetic freak, a one-off anomaly, in his era.

Again, I contend that if guys of Willard's size had been as common back then as they are today, then the CW division would have had to be introduced 100 years earlier, to give little fellas like The Galveston Giant a fair chance of becoming world champions!

Moving on through history, Primo Carnera, 6' 5" 270lbs, was the next HW champ who would qualify as a "giant" by modern standards. He was hyped to the heavens till he lost. But retrospectively, the general consensus opinion on his reign is that he basically had nothing going for him except sheer size and strength, compared to his contemporaries.

Occam's Razor clearly point to your logic meaning **** next to three thousand years of history buddy.

Hence my Mendoza-Lewis bit. Nothing flies more in the face of logic because Mendoza a 155lber, but, three thousand of evidence is a lot of evidence.

It's the sport that evolved not the people. My explanation explain this. Yours doesn't. Yours by your own admission cuts away most of boxing history to focus on a time when boxing rules were drastically changed.

In a system where both fighters know there is no time limit both fighters will start that fight differently than one that has a time limit. In a system where rounds are down the fighters will fight differently then a system where rounds are timed

I shouldn't need to continue, you get the point.

So far as energy output, you are assuming. That is exactly why it used to work. The energy output difference is just ****ing absurd.

If the sport was running would you even consider it? Do you really believe a smaller man can't not only run farther than Wlad but do it while running faster? Have you seen the shape of a great runner?

Nope, if Wlad tries to keep up with a runner like Bekele, Bekele will kill him unless Wlad quits. Too fast, too endurant. You know it's damn true. That's why we don't have HW runners.

Throw in a bit of punching and all of a sudden gas tanks are somewhere in the world of evens? No, they're not even close.

Look into kinesiology if you're actually interested in the science that explains it.

I've no idea what 3,000 year history you are referring to here, and I had to look up kinesiology to know what it is. "The study of human movement". Or, "Applied kinesiology muscle testing is a bizarre alternative medicine method of diagnosis and prescription .." Whichever you prefer.

I honestly don't see how that can answer the question under discussion here. But I believe I can answer it, from my own direct personal experience. I'm a former competitive boxer with over 50 amateur fights and many years experience sparring different sized opponents, amateur and pro, from featherweights to heavyweights.

I can assure you that, as a MW, sparring HWs was considerably more gruelling and energy sapping than sparring LWs or WWs. And that was only sparring!

If I said that to anyone with either practical or theoretical knowledge of boxing itself, the reaction would be something along the lines of .. "Yes, of course. What else would you expect?"

I also repeat something I said in a previous post. The first weight divisions in boxing were introduced in the 19th century, during the unlimited rounds era. There were only 2, to begin with. Lightweight and Heavyweight. LW was anything up to either 154 or 168, depending on where the fight took place. HW was anything over.

The reason why those divisions were introduced was that everybody connected to the sport realised that a smaller man was handicapped in a fight with a bigger opponent, and they wanted to reduce the size dispararities involved.

I rest my case.

[Citizen Koba]

I've seen statistical comparisons of the relative size of top class modern athletes and those of previous eras in a variety of different sports. The top sprinters, swimmers, football (soccer) players, rugby players, tennis players, are all, on average, bigger now than at at any time in the past.

Yes shifting more of your own mass involves more effort. But if you are using your own mass to shift something - or somebody - else, then the more more mass you have, the less effort is required.

In the case of boxers, taking punches from your opponent drains you of energy just as much, if not more, than throwing punches. The harder the punches, the more they take out of you, and the bigger the opponent, the harder he will hit you. And, of course, wrestling, shoving, and resisting being shoved around in clinches is also more tiring if your opponent is bigger than you.

Jim Jeffries and Jack Johnson were arguably the 2 greatest ever unlimited rounds champions. Both were considered to be invincible, in their primes, and both were unusually big men for their era. Jeffries was 6' 1.5" 225lbs, Johnson was 6' 2" and around 210lbs, in his prime.

Johnson was known as "The Galveston giant" because athletic men of his size were comparitively rare back then. He could probably have made CW if he was fighting today!

My contention is that if guys of Johnson and Jeffries size had been as common in the unlimited rounds era as they became in the 60s and 70s, there would have been more of them winning world HW titles.

The guy who eventually beat Johnson, also over unlimited rounds, was Jess Willard, who was 6' 6" 235lbs. Willard was thought of as a genetic freak, a one-off anomaly, in his era.

Again, I contend that if guys of Willard's size had been as common back then as they are today, then the CW division would have had to be introduced 100 years earlier, to give little fellas like The Galveston Giant a fair chance of becoming world champions!

Moving on through history, Primo Carnera, 6' 5" 270lbs, was the next HW champ who would qualify as a "giant" by modern standards. He was hyped to the heavens till he lost. But retrospectively, the general consensus opinion on his reign is that he basically had nothing going for him except sheer size and strength, compared to his contemporaries.

I'm not attached to either theory, but both have things going for them... I'm more interested to see whether we can find any more substantial evidence for either, or a method we could use to tackle the problem.

The first issue about athletes from many sports being larger today than in previous generations isn't quite what I was meaning - the question I asked is whether they are bigger or smaller relative to the general population than they were in previous eras... if the average height for US men is about 2.5" taller now than 100 years ago (per Time http://time.com/4423803/how-tall-100-years-height/) has the average height of top US HW boxers increased more or less than that? Has there been the same effect in other countries? Course - height is just one part of the equation... Wilder for instance weights little more than many HWs from previous eras but is considerably taller than most.

The second part of my query was how this compares to other sports - I was interested to say, for instance whether distance runners have increased as much, more or less, relative to the general population as have explosive athletes like sprinters. I strongly suspect that endurance athletes will be on average notably smaller - probably in terms of mass more than height - than explosive athletes, though the degree to which this impacts on boxing is not absolutely clear given the complex physical requirements of the sport.

With regards to your examples there's clearly a balance - all of us understand that there are limits to the advantages gained by size - I'm not saying that Valuev was a great boxer, but clearly huge guys are slower and use more energy and at some point this becomes more of a disadvantage than an advantage - especially when we consider that a man doesn't really have to be that big to deliver seriously damaging punches to even the biggest opponent. The question that needs answering is at what point does increased size become more of a liability than an advantage, and is this impacted by the duration of a fight?

We can look at Jim Jefferies generally weighing in between 210 and 220lbs over 15 and 20 round fights and tell that in his case at least that wasn't too big for that length of fight - he was generally outweighing his opponents by 15 or 20lbs and clearly that was more of advantage than a disadvantage over that length of fight. JEfferies was of course beaten by the smaller man Johnson, but since he was 35 it's hard to see what can be drawn from that.

Johnson was beaten by the giant Willard, but again not until he was 37 years of age if my maths is right... what can be said about Jess Willard is that he was beaten by much smaller men on numerous occasions (sub 180lb guys in at least 2 cases)... also worth noting that outside of a 37 y/o Johnson the longest fight that Willard ever won only lasted 11 rounds.

Problem we got though is that we only got a relatively small sample size and furthermore the attributes that go to make up a successful boxer are such an interwoven mix of factors both physical and mental that statistical analysis might not be a realistic approach.

I'm open minded on this one... generally the point to be understood is that size is good, but too much size ain't - the question is whether this sweet spot varies with factors such as the length of the fight.

[kafkod]

I'm not attached to either theory, but both have things going for them... I'm more interested to see whether we can find any more substantial evidence for either, or a method we could use to tackle the problem.

The first issue about athletes from many sports being larger today than in previous generations isn't quite what I was meaning - the question I asked is whether they are bigger or smaller relative to the general population than they were in previous eras... if the average height for US men is about 2.5" taller now than 100 years ago (per Time http://time.com/4423803/how-tall-100-years-height/) has the average height of top US HW boxers increased more or less than that? Has there been the same effect in other countries? Course - height is just one part of the equation... Wilder for instance weights little more than many HWs from previous eras but is considerably taller than most.

The second part of my query was how this compares to other sports - I was interested to say, for instance whether distance runners have increased as much, more or less, relative to the general population as have explosive athletes like sprinters. I strongly suspect that endurance athletes will be on average notably smaller - probably in terms of mass more than height - than explosive athletes, though the degree to which this impacts on boxing is not absolutely clear given the complex physical requirements of the sport.

With regards to your examples there's clearly a balance - all of us understand that there are limits to the advantages gained by size - I'm not saying that Valuev was a great boxer, but clearly huge guys are slower and use more energy and at some point this becomes more of a disadvantage than an advantage - especially when we consider that a man doesn't really have to be that big to deliver seriously damaging punches to even the biggest opponent. The question that needs answering is at what point does increased size become more of a liability than an advantage, and is this impacted by the duration of a fight?

We can look at Jim Jefferies generally weighing in between 210 and 220lbs over 15 and 20 round fights and tell that in his case at least that wasn't too big for that length of fight - he was generally outweighing his opponents by 15 or 20lbs and clearly that was more of advantage than a disadvantage over that length of fight. JEfferies was of course beaten by the smaller man Johnson, but since he was 35 it's hard to see what can be drawn from that.

Johnson was beaten by the giant Willard, but again not until he was 37 years of age if my maths is right... what can be said about Jess Willard is that he was beaten by much smaller men on numerous occasions (sub 180lb guys in at least 2 cases)... also worth noting that outside of a 37 y/o Johnson the longest fight that Willard ever won only lasted 11 rounds.

Problem we got though is that we only got a relatively small sample size and furthermore the attributes that go to make up a successful boxer are such an interwoven mix of factors both physical and mental that statistical analysis might not be a realistic approach.

I'm open minded on this one... generally the point to be understood is that size is good, but too much size ain't - the question is whether this sweet spot varies with factors such as the length of the fight.

The percieved wisdom within the sport, based on generations of empirical experience, is that size advantage becomes more of an advantage the longer the fight goes on, all else being equal.

The percieved wisdom also held that there was a cut off point beyond which size ceased to be an advantage and could actually turn into a disadvantage, and that it lay somewhere just north of 190/200lbs, depending on the individual fighter.

That's why, for generations, there wasn't thought to be a need for any more than one weight division above 190lbs.

What happened then was that, as the average size of the general population increased, more and more wannabe boxing champs who were well north of 190/200lbs, and with height and reach to match, started showing up in boxing gyms.

Smart coaches looked at these big guys and started asking themselves if it would be worth investing time and effort into looking at new ways to train them and coach them so they would get maximum benifit from their size, instead of just ignoring it and training them as if they were MWs or "normal" sized HWs.

Manny Steward was the pioneer in that respect, of course.

Imo, more giant HWs in the gyms and coaches getting better at training them to use their size effectively is the reason behind the increase in the average size of HW champions and contenders in recent years, rather than the introduction of 12 round championship fights.

And remember, top contenders and world champs have always started off as novices, competing in 6, 8, and 10 round fights as they worked their way up the ladder and into contention for title fights. And the big guys are doing better in those shorter fights too, or there wouldn't be so many of them getting top 10 rankings. Nothing has changed in that respect.

[kafkod]

If the sport was running would you even consider it? Do you really believe a smaller man can't not only run farther than Wlad but do it while running faster? Have you seen the shape of a great runner?

Nope, if Wlad tries to keep up with a runner like Bekele, Bekele will kill him unless Wlad quits. Too fast, too endurant. You know it's damn true. That's why we don't have HW runners.

Throw in a bit of punching and all of a sudden gas tanks are somewhere in the world of evens? No, they're not even close.

I don't think that Bekele would be able to crawl 10 meters after a bit of punching from Wlad, let alone run 10,000.

[Citizen Koba]

The percieved wisdom within the sport, based on generations of empirical experience, is that size advantage becomes more of an advantage the longer the fight goes on, all else being equal.

The percieved wisdom also held that there was a cut off point beyond which size ceased to be an advantage and could actually turn into a disadvantage, and that it lay somewhere just north of 190/200lbs, depending on the individual fighter.

That's why, for generations, there wasn't thought to be a need for any more than one weight division above 190lbs.

What happened then was that, as the average size of the general population increased, more and more wannabe boxing champs who were well north of 190/200lbs, and with height and reach to match, started showing up in boxing gyms.

Smart coaches looked at these big guys and started asking themselves if it would be worth investing time and effort into looking at new ways to train them and coach them so they would get maximum benifit from their size, instead of just ignoring it and training them as if they were MWs or "normal" sized HWs.

Manny Steward was the pioneer in that respect, of course.

Imo, more giant HWs in the gyms and coaches getting better at training them to use their size effectively is the reason behind the increase in the average size of HW champions and contenders in recent years, rather than the introduction of 12 round championship fights.

And remember, all top contenders and world champs start off as novices, fighting 6 rounds, then 8, then 10, as they work their way up the ladder. And the big guys are doing better in those shorter fights too, or there wouldn't be so many of them getting top 10 rankings.

Mmmm. Yeah. I was reflecting on the idea that different training methods and fight strategies might allow the window to be pushed further as I wrote the little essay above... but y'know if I started including every tangent my brain throws up I'd never get a damn thing finished..

Course it kinda remains clear that there is such a thing as 'too big' and almost certainly 'too small' to compete at the top level, the question that remains is whether a longer fight would perhaps favour a guy of 6'3" and 220 say over a guy of 6'6" and 250 all else being equal. You're reckoning that the longer fight plays into the hand of the bigger guy and I ain't so sure. So much unfortunately is down to the individuals in boxing, and even if you when you get a fight like Joshua vs Parker you'll never be able to extrapolate to, say, Joshua vs Usyk, or to a greater extreme how either would look at 15+ rounds.

You mention the 'perceived wisdom', and I'm getting exactly what you mean... as it applies to the smaller weight classes (as in Canelo Khan and Brook GGG for instance), but what I'm trying to explore is the point at which that rule breaks down... either in terms of fight length or fighter size. Are HW champions going to continuing increasing in average size? And if not, what exactly will be the limiting factors? We gonna see more 7' Champs (though it's less likely now because certainly in the US average height in the male population appears to have reached or even passed it's peak and in other parts of the world is slowing). And would this trend continue should we return to 15 or 20 round fights or would it be reversed to a degree?